Is Obama calling for Mission Creep in Libya?

CNN, the network that loved to go after President Bush for overreaching with our military and still disses him, now seems to be pushing mission creep in Libya after their interview with Obama. Has Obama, aka the Bosnian Bill Clinton, left the the door open to arm the rebels in this interview? Sure sounds like it. Looks like CNN is back to pushing the Obama agenda after Obama granted them this interview. We knew CNN playing it down the middle would never last.




Has anyone in this Administration bothered to look at their own State Department designation of these rebels in eastern Libya before they want to arm them? The eastern area of Libya that has been anti-American for a long time.

Today, there is little doubt that eastern Libya, like other parts of the Arab world, is experiencing a genuine burst of anti-totalitarian fervor, expressed in demands for political freedom and economic reforms. But there also is a dark history to eastern Libya, which is the home of the Islamic Libyan Fighting Group, an anti-Gaddafi organization officially designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization.

If French embed reports are correct, the group Obama and now CNN wants to help are majahideen. When is an adult going to say NO! Since this article from National Review and Pajamas Media, more sources are saying these rebels are Jihadists.

From National Review:

Why do intervention proponents insist on calling them rebels when they call themselves mujahideen — Muslim warriors fighting a jihad?

At Pajamas, John Rosenthal has details of a report by French journalist Marc de Chalvron, who was embedded with the Libyan “rebels” before they were turned back by Qaddafi’s forces. They refer to their battle as “the jihad” — Islamic holy war. (At least that’s what they interpret jihad to mean. They apparently haven’t gotten the memo from Georgetown that jihad is really a peaceful internal struggle for personal betterment, a solemn commitment to brush after every meal, or whatever ISNA is calling jihad this week).

The French report shows the “rebels” proclaiming that “Now, the time of jihad has arrived!” and, of course, screaming, “Allahu Akbar!” as they fire their guns into the air.

Rand Corporation fellow Angel Rabasa at CNN says we should arm the rebels just as we did in Bosnia. We all know how well that turned out as Clinton bombed the Chinese Embassy during bombing action. The Clinton push to involve NATO in the Bosnian conflict leading to an undeclared war started in February 1994 and we are still in Bosnia today 17 years later. Is this what we have to look forward to in Libya if they don't oust Gadhafi?

Is Obama following the Clinton playbook to get reelected since he has left the door open to provide arms to the rebels (jihadists) hoping it makes him look Presidential. Is the next thing going to be advisers to go with the weapons? Obama on Libya is beginning to sound like Kennedy/LBJ in Vietnam and Clinton in Bosnia. Why were we ever involved in Vietnam, Bosnia, or now Libya? Carter didn't do mission creep, he just lost the whole country of Iran to the Islamic radicals.

Angel Rabasa at CNN comments on arming the rebels:

The U.N. Security Council resolution that authorized the no-fly zone and all necessary measures to protect civilians under attack in Libya did not call for Gadhafi’s ouster. There are reports that some Arab countries are considering deploying ground troops to Libya. But if they do, their role would likely be protection of the civilian population in areas outside Gadhafi’s control. That outcome would still leave Gadhafi in power in western Libya.

That leaves few effective options if the United States wants to prevent the crisis in Libya from leading to a prolonged armed conflict or de facto partition that leaves a ruthless, embittered dictator with a terrorist record in control of half the country. That situation could have long-term destabilizing consequences for Libya and the Middle East.

The way out of this conundrum would be for the United States to clarify its goals in Libya. Recognizing that lasting stability could only come about as the result of the removal of Gadhafi from power, the United States and like-minded countries could begin by recognizing the Benghazi government as the legitimate government of Libya. The Libyan National Council is, after all, a government set up by a popular uprising against tyranny and therefore inherently more legitimate than Gadhafi’s government in Tripoli.

The United States also might consider launching an effort to provide the Benghazi government with arms and equipment to defend itself against Gadhafi’s forces and to help it liberate western Libya. The U.S. need not become directly involved in the training and equipping of the Libyan opposition. As with the Bosnia train and equip program, a small U.S. team could help arrange for the purchase and delivery of arms, as well as supply training, possibly by third parties.

Cannot believe any person would bring up Bosnia in comparing it to Libya since we are still in Bosnia. Where does CNN find these people?